Olson v. McGraw
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1989, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Career Resources, Inc. v. Pearson Candy Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- State Ex Rel. Effertz v. Schimelpfenig (Minn. 1934)
- Pettit v. Wood-Owen Trailer Co. (N.C. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Certiorari on the relation of the Continental Casualty Company, the insurer, to review a decision of the industrial commission awarding compensation to an injured employe.
The correctness of the award as to amount is not questioned. The only issue is as to the liability of the insurer, and that involves the sole question as to whether or not an attempted cancelation of a *308 workmen’s compensation policy was effective prior to the time of the employe’s accident, which occurred at six a. m. on September 4, 1931.
The policy provided that it “may be canceled at any time by either of the parties upon written notice to the other party stating when, not less than ten days thereafter, cancelation shall be effective.”
The employer (insured) received written notice of the cancelation of the policy by registered mail on August 25, 1931, at 2:30 p. m. The notice stated that the policy “is hereby cancelled as of 12:01 a. m. September 3rd, 1931.” The statement in the notice as to the day, hour, and minute when the cancelation was to become effective is not controlling — there must be ten days’ notice. Relator contends that the ten-day period began to run on the day of the receipt of the notice by the insured, and that that day should not be excluded. This contention is not sound.
G. S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 10933(21), provides:
“In computing the time within which an act is required or permitted to be done, the first day shall be excluded and the last included, unless the last shall fall on Sunday or on a holiday, in which case the prescribed time shall be extended so as to include the first business day thereafter.”
This rule applies to statutes wherein a stated period of time is provided for. The statutory rule as such does not apply to the computation of time in private contracts. However, a like rule is generally applied to such contracts and is the common law rule. Nebola v. Minnesota Iron Co. 102 Minn. 89, 112 N. W. 880, 12 Ann. Cas. 56; Bank of Dassel v. March, 183 Minn. 127, 235 N. W. 914. That rule applies in this case. The policy Avas in full force and effect at the time of the accident.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.